TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: non-compete clauses From:Katherine Pyle <kathpyle -at- IX -dot- NETCOM -dot- COM> Date:Wed, 8 Oct 1997 18:07:39 -0700
>Deciding not to sign, regardless of whether you sought counsel, would be a
>tough call....has anyone ever _refused_ to sign?
I have refused.
In fact, I will not even consideer working for a broker who has a clause
I think it is reasonable, perhaps, to ask me not to work for a specific
client for at year after I finish a brokered job for that particular client
("client" being defined as a single department in a single company, or
perhaps a single location of a large, multi-site company. This is because,
otherwise, the broker has a very real risk that I will quickly quit my
brokered contract and immediately turn around and start working for the
client company under a direct contract at a cheaper rate. And that would
not be fair to the broker who got me the job originally.
But to tell me that I can't work for that department of that company
without the broker, or for any other branch of a big company, or for any
company that is/was a client of that broker, or any company that is a
client of the broker's client company. Forget it!
Even if the clause is unenforceable, as my lawyer says in the case,I don't
want to work with a brokerage that is that greedy, or that is willing to
try to trick me into believing an illegal, unenforceable clause is